What is the Glass Cliff?

The term “glass cliff” might sound like a twist on the more familiar “glass ceiling,” and in a way, it is. While the glass ceiling blocks people, especially women and minorities, as well as other minorities such as people of color, from reaching top leadership roles, the glass cliff describes what often happens once they get there: they’re handed the reins when the situation is already a mess, such as in a struggling company. This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in the corporate world, where women and minorities are promoted to leadership during times of crisis. Researchers at the University of Exeter first mentioned the glass cliff phenomenon. Research published in the Harvard Business Review and other academic journals demonstrates that the glass cliff exists, showing that these groups are more likely to be appointed to precarious leadership positions and face higher risks of failure or replacement.

In this article, we explore the glass cliff, its causes, real-world examples, and what organizations and individuals can do about it.

What Does "Glass Cliff" Mean?

Coined by researchers Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam in 2004, the glass cliff describes a pattern where women and people from underrepresented backgrounds are more likely to be promoted into leadership roles during periods of crisis or poor performance. In short, the glass cliff phenomenon means the job looks like a win on paper, but it’s set up for failure. Women candidates and appointed women are often placed in senior or top leadership positions during these challenging times.

These roles usually come with high pressure, unrealistic expectations, and limited support, making it much harder for the new leader to succeed. This often occurs in weakly performing firms, where women are promoted into higher positions, such as being appointed CEO, during turbulent times. In contrast, male candidates are often considered for such positions in more stable or prosperous periods.

Why Does the Glass Cliff Happen in Times of Crisis?

1. Stereotypes About "Natural Leaders"

During tough times, boards and executives may believe women or minority leaders bring emotional intelligence, empathy, or a calming presence. In fact, women and minorities are often preferentially selected for leadership roles during organizational crises, a pattern linked to the glass cliff phenomenon. But those assumptions can backfire when paired with unrealistic expectations and poor structural support.

2. A Quick PR Fix

Appointing someone who “looks different” from the previous leadership can send a message of change to stakeholders. But if the organization doesn’t also change how it operates, the setup is mostly for show.

Such appointments often serve to maintain the status quo rather than drive meaningful organizational change.

3. Shifting the Blame

If things go south, it can be easier to place blame on the person at the top, especially if they were seen as a symbolic hire. These are often precarious positions with a high risk of failure, where individuals are set up to take the fall. This lets the system avoid taking a hard look at its own role in the failure.

Real-World Examples

Mary Barra – General Motors

In 2014, Mary Barra became the first female CEO of GM, making her the first woman CEO to lead the company during a time when GM was a struggling company facing massive recalls. As the appointed CEO during a challenging industry period, she took on significant risks and responsibilities.

While she navigated the crisis impressively, her leadership was closely tied to company performance, and the decision by board members to elevate her to the top role reflected the high stakes and expectations placed on her during this turbulent time. She faced a level of scrutiny her male predecessors largely avoided.

Theresa May – UK Prime Minister

Theresa May stepped into leadership during Brexit chaos, in a situation that was already spiraling. Her appointment looked like a new direction, but she inherited deep divisions and impossible odds.

Marissa Mayer – Yahoo!

Marissa Mayer took over Yahoo! in 2012, when the company was already in decline. Despite her credentials, she was expected to perform miracles in a role that came with plenty of baggage and very little strategic leeway.

Why It Matters: The Ripple Effects

When women and other underrepresented leaders are placed in high-risk roles without adequate support, the consequences extend far beyond individual careers. These patterns have a broader impact on organizational culture, leadership pipelines, and the credibility of diversity efforts. Understanding these ripple effects is critical to creating meaningful, lasting change.

Lost Talent: The Impact on Women Leaders

When high-potential women are placed in roles destined for failure, often with limited support or during organizational crises, they frequently exit their industries altogether or choose to avoid future leadership opportunities. This loss of talent deprives organizations of capable leaders and reinforces barriers to equity in leadership pipelines.

Reinforcing Harmful Narratives

When women or minority leaders are set up to fail, their struggles can be misinterpreted as evidence that they were never suited for leadership in the first place. These failures risk reinforcing damaging stereotypes, making it even harder for others from underrepresented groups to be seen as viable leaders.

Shallow Diversity Wins

Appointing diverse leaders only in times of turmoil creates the illusion of progress without the substance. If these leaders are not given the conditions they need to thrive, organizations forfeit the chance to see what real inclusion and long-term, supported leadership can achieve.

Spotting Precarious Positions Before You Step Off the Glass Cliff

If you’re offered a high-level role, take a moment to assess the broader context. Ask yourself:

• Is the organization in a period of crisis or decline?
• How many others have recently held this position, and why did they leave?
• Will I be given the authority, time, and resources required to succeed?
• Am I being brought in to lead real change, or only to signal that the organization is “doing something different”?

These questions can help you determine whether the opportunity is a step forward or a setup for failure.

What Organizations Can Do

Avoiding the glass cliff requires more than just awareness, and it takes deliberate, systemic action. Organizations need to rethink how they identify, support, and evaluate leadership to ensure that diversity efforts are meaningful, not performative. Here’s how to create environments where all leaders, including those from underrepresented groups, can thrive.

• Make diverse leadership the norm, not the exception: Don’t just call in underrepresented leaders when there’s a fire to put out. Bring them in during growth phases, too.
• Plan ahead with equity in mind: Use succession planning to build a pipeline of diverse leaders who are prepared for a range of challenges, not just cleanup jobs.
• Create a strong support system: Ensure new leaders have clear goals, real authority, mentorship, and the right tools to succeed.
• Tackle bias from the top: Train decision-makers to recognize and correct for biases in assessing candidates and defining "success."

What Leaders Can Do Before Accepting a Role

Leadership roles can be exciting and career-defining, but they’re not all created equal. Taking the time to assess the situation, ask the right questions, and build a support system can make the difference between a successful step forward and a setback. Before you say yes, consider the following:

• Do your homework: Look into the organization’s track record. Are you stepping into an opportunity, or into a situation others have fled from?
• Ask the hard questions: Negotiate for the support you need. If the budget is tight or the timeline is short, make sure expectations reflect that reality.
• Own your narrative: Set your story early. Communicate wins, clarify challenges, and don’t let others define your legacy.
• Build a safety net: Lean on mentors and trusted peers. Having an outside perspective is crucial when you're under pressure.

Glass Cliff FAQs

Q: Can men experience a glass cliff?

A: Yes, men can find themselves in precarious leadership roles during times of crisis. However, the “glass cliff” phenomenon disproportionately affects women and people from marginalized groups. The concept highlights how risk and instability are often unevenly distributed, driven by stereotypes, optics, and assumptions about who can "fix" a bad situation without long-term institutional support.

Q: Is taking a glass cliff role always a mistake?

A: Not necessarily. While the risks are real, some leaders have turned these challenging moments into turning points in their careers. Success is possible, but it requires a clear understanding of the situation, strong boundaries, a support network, and ideally, negotiated authority and resources. Without those, even the most talented leaders can be undermined by circumstances beyond their control.

Q: How does a glass cliff role differ from a regular tough job?

A: A tough job can be demanding, but a glass cliff role is often uniquely high-risk and low-reward. It’s not just the difficulty; it’s the combination of unstable conditions, limited support, and the likelihood that the role was offered because of the leader’s identity and what it signals to outsiders. These roles are often more symbolic than strategic, with little room to succeed.

Q: Why do people say yes to these roles?

A: There are many reasons. Sometimes it’s the only offer available, especially for those who don’t fit traditional leadership molds. Sometimes leaders genuinely want to make a difference or prove themselves. But in many cases, they don’t fully realize how constrained or politically fraught the role will be until they’re already in it. Ambition, hope, and a lack of transparency can all play a role.

Q: What sectors see this the most?

A: Glass cliff appointments are especially common in high-visibility fields like politics, media, corporate leadership, and nonprofits. These sectors often face public scrutiny and pressure to appear progressive, which can result in symbolic appointments of underrepresented leaders during times of crisis. These moves may satisfy external expectations without changing the internal power dynamics that set leaders up for success.